Heroic Resonances in Caesar's Bellum Gallicum 5

The ancient term commentarius designates works ranging from official records to collections of anecdotes to historical narrative. The ancient historiographical commentarius tended to be represented as an emperor in search of new clothes, as it were – clothing that would provide the copia, ornatus, and completeness appropriate to a work of artistic prose. The three ancient critics presented testify to the frustrations inherent in evaluating a Caesarian commentarius. Additionally, some ways in which the ancient reactions to the Commentarii are reflected in modern criticism (primarily of the Bellum Gallicum) are covered. The chapter then demonstrates that what Eden (1962:74) calls the ‘ambivalent status’ of the commentarius does fit closely with the biographical tradition concerning Caesar’s habits, dress, and demeanor; and further, suggests that same biographical tradition can be read as a complex of metaphors. Caesar’s particular brand of commentarius may be just the kind of oratio this character deserved.

Download Full-text

The First Supine in Bellum Gallicum and Bellum Civile: A Study of Caesar as Grammarian, Narrator, and Exemplum

Classical Philology ◽

10.1086/699756 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 113 (4) ◽

pp. 404-422

Author(s):

Karen L. Carducci

Keyword(s):

Bellum Civile ◽

Bellum Gallicum

Download Full-text

C. Iulii Caesaris Commentarii Rerum Gestarum. Vol. I: Bellum Gallicum

The Classical World ◽

10.2307/4344705 ◽

1961 ◽

Vol 55 (2) ◽

pp. 54

Author(s):

James W. Halporn ◽

Otto Seel

Keyword(s):

Bellum Gallicum

Download Full-text

Der Gallische Krieg / Bellum Gallicum

10.1515/9783050064192 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

Bellum Gallicum

Download Full-text

IRONY AND THE TEXT OF CAESAR, BELLVM GALLICVM 5.31.5

The Classical Quarterly ◽

10.1017/s0009838817000076 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 67 (1) ◽

pp. 307-310

Author(s):

Rex Stem

Keyword(s):

Bellum Gallicum

The sentence that comprises 5.31.5 in Caesar's Bellum Gallicum has long been felt to be problematic. It was deleted entirely by H. Meusel. A. Klotz posited a lacuna after quare. Others sought smaller adjustments. Yet, the defence of the text as transmitted also drew advocates (T. Rice Holmes, A. Ernout, O. Seel) and the debate quietened. The current Teubner edition, by W. Hering in 1987, prints the transmitted text and does not acknowledge the debate in the apparatus criticus. I propose a new solution, one that reinterprets the sentence in context and requires a small textual change from et to nec. I will first set the context and identify problems with the conventional understanding of 5.31.5.

Download Full-text